Zimmerman says that Trayvon was sitting on top of him. Unless Trayvon was sitting on his thighs or knees, (which seems pretty unlikely, and is not a scenario that anyone suggested in any of the reenactments) Trayvon's legs would have blocked his access to the gun. Did you see the video?

Either Zimmerman was on top, or the gun was out already. In either case, Zimmerman was lying. Given the fact that he was really hyped up, as evidenced by both the content of his words during the 911 call, and his tone, as well as the forensic evidence that suggests that the shot was made while Trayvon was over Zimmerman, I believe that he had the gun out to begin with.

This issue was discussed by many analysts because the prosecution never pegged this conflict in the defense's proposed sequence of events. It is quite clear that either Zimmerman pulled out his firearm before he ended up under Martin or Zimmerman was never under Martin. No one has offered a logical, plausible explanation for how the prosecution's sequence of events could be accurate. The prosecution didn't appropriately challenge it. The prosecution generated questions but provided no answers. It was a WTH? moment.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

What is your understanding of what a "Stand Your Ground" law actually is?

Bump... NGFM, please get to this when you have a moment. Thanks.

I read your 1,2,3,4, and the fact that SYG eliminates #4. That was my understanding, that before this law, you were supposed to try to avoid confrontation before using deadly force. You are not to follow or approach the person you think is a bad guy. You are supposed to get away if at all possible. Physical force was supposed to be the last resort, after all other avenues have been shut off. That is what I was taught in martial arts and self-defense training. But it seems that in this case, Z. was allowed to follow, approach, engage, ie SYG eliminating #4 but for some reason, Trayvon was supposed to avoid confrontation and run away as in the pre SYG 1,2,3,4.

I was also taught that you should NEVER have a loaded gun in your hand, in a self-defense situation, unless you are prepared to kill. And you should not be carrying loaded if you are not prepared to use. Loaded guns are not supposed to be used to "scare" or "threaten" a possible bad guy-- once you engage, you have to be ready to kill or he will take that weapon and kill you.

For similar reasons, there is no point in carrying an unloaded weapon (unless you plan to rob a bank or liquor store and want a reduced charge in case you get caught). Any gun should be treated by everyone as if it is loaded. So, a bad guy seeing your gun will assume it to be loaded, and will act accordingly-- run if sane or try to kill you first if crazy.

Women are always taught to scream and try to get away from a potential bad situation. Problem is, a lot of the time, everyday life is a potential bad situation for females. Whenever a woman is alone, esp after dark, she is in a potential bad situation. And most of the time, women are attacked by people they know, at least slightly. By the time she knows for sure that she is in danger, it is probably too late to scream or run anyway.

Thus my earlier statement that women and girls should carry loaded weapons, and maybe even drive around looking for "suspicious males". As soon as things get dicey, shoot to kill. Your word against the dead guy's. And hope you get Zimmerman's jury. More guys who were guilty of only walking along the street will end up like Trayvon, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to stay off the streets. A lot more innocent dead guys along with the few rapists, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to run and hide. Let men, all men, not just young black men, be scared to walk the streets at night for a change.

Not to belittle this discussion or cause too much of a tangent. Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that even today with eyewitness accounts, 911 phone call evidence all almost in real time etc... Everyone (who was not on the jury) seems to not agree/believe on the exact truth of events that took place but are quick to fill in the gaps as they seem to fit their perspective on things...

It's all very unnerving that we can't do this with stories even today with the communications technology let alone begin to do what this site tries to - communicate that th bible is not meant to tell the story of exact truth and/or events that supposively took place.

I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of the Google glass specs but I'm actually starting to see the value in literally having real time video/audio of other eyewitness account situations in the future. I think the decision of the jury would have been potentially very different had the star prosecution witness poor communication skills removed been removed from the equation.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 09:48:35 PM by DVZ3 »

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Not to belittle this discussion or cause too much of a tangent. Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that even today with eyewitness accounts, 911 phone call evidence all almost in real time etc... Everyone (who was not on the jury) seems to not agree/believe on the exact truth of events that took place but are quick to fill in the gaps as they seem to fit their perspective on things...

That's one of the reasons I find gospel discrepancy arguments less than compelling.

In 100 years no-one will still know the exact details of what occurred with Zimmerman and Martin. But I doubt anyone will use the various discrepancies to try and say Martin was never shot by Zimmerman at all.

Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

If you are one of those that think this is okay, please explain. I just don't get it. Had Zimmerman not followed and/or confronted Trayvon, nothing would have happened. Trayvon had not committed any crimes, he was merely walking home after going to the store.

Why is his death okay because Zimmerman shot in self defense? Zimmerman should have been at home looking at porn and eating cheetos. And Trayvon should have been eating Skittles shortly when instead he was being carted off to the morgue.

The legality of the killing is bad enough. Saying that since the jury found Zimmerman innocent, no wrong was done, and no changes need to be made, confounds me

I've often wondered what it would be like to be a member of a racial minority group. I take it that when I'm dead I'll know.

Not to belittle this discussion or cause too much of a tangent. Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that even today with eyewitness accounts, 911 phone call evidence all almost in real time etc... Everyone (who was not on the jury) seems to not agree/believe on the exact truth of events that took place but are quick to fill in the gaps as they seem to fit their perspective on things...

That's one of the reasons I find gospel discrepancy arguments less than compelling.

In 100 years no-one will still know the exact details of what occurred with Zimmerman and Martin. But I doubt anyone will use the various discrepancies to try and say Martin was never shot by Zimmerman at all.

^^^ Maybe it is time to split this off?

Now you are comparing two very different scenarios. In the gospel stories we are instructed to believe that some incredibly important supernatural events occurred: the most important person who ever walked the earth, god in human form, was executed and then rose form the dead! Never happened before and never repeated since. Big, big news, right?

And, nobody of note wrote about it at the time. The supposed eyewitness accounts, told in oral form for years before being written down, sound like urban legends. They don't add up. Remember, we have all kinds of boring records of tax payments, the record of the depth of the Nile in different years, census data, property records dating back to ancient Mesopotamia. We even have letters that everyday people of that time wrote in that region that sound like modern emails--"Went shopping in the market. Bought two goats."

But not one contemporary record of the crucifixion and resurrection. No record of the location of the tomb. No record of the other convicts executed at the same time. Nothing. Nada. Not only did Jesus rise from the dead and stroll around greeting his friends. The sky went dark and other people rose from the graveyards, too, right? Are we supposed to believe that nobody thought any of that was worth writing home about? Nobody?

In everyday human events, of course, people's memories are not perfect. But in a hundred years, maybe even in a thousand years, there will still be tons of contemporary commentary about the Trayvon case and verdict. Because it was big news. And Trayvon, as far as we can tell was not even a nephew of god. Let alone the son of one.

Had Zimmerman not followed and/or confronted Trayvon, nothing would have happened. Trayvon had not committed any crimes...

While I tend to agree with this statement as I think/hope we all can agree that TM would be alive if he hadn't exited the vehicle I have to ask the following not having been on the jury. I don't think this in and of itself proves GZ is a cold blooded killer or thoughts of violence necessarily - stupid in hinsight knowing how it ended up playing out, yes.

Do we honestly know beyond a reasonable doubt the reasoning behind him getting out of the car and the events after that transpired? I ask because there's claims that GZ may have gotten out of his vehicle to better establish a location and/or address to better communicate TM location to the 911 operator. Is it at all possible the juries verdict "he had good intentions" in trying to communicate to authorities where to find him even when he was to not to pursue?

A concerned citizen with a concealed gun got out of his car to better understand the location whereabouts is not plausible whatsoever - I'm not quite sure...

This is why the events that transpired leading to the confrontation/struggle after he exited the vehicle are so critical to the case in my opinion as I think we're making way too many assumptions/personal bias after he exited the vehicle as to GZ reasoning and rationale even if it wasn't the 'smart' thing to do for both parties at the time.

DV, the particulars of this particular case are almost irrelevant to me. Like every other thing that happens on this planet, we will never know exactly what transpired, be it a murder or merely a birthday party where one kid ended up crying.

People are in jail today (and probably most of them rightfully so) because they made the mistake of looking down to change the radio station when they should have been paying more attention to the road and someone died as a result. They made a mistake, and they are paying for it. Zimmerman doesn't have to be a cold blooded killer to have his actions irk me. He killed someone who, up until the moment he decided to fight back, was doing nothing wrong. And while the jury had no trouble getting excuses from Zimmerman, they couldn't hear Trayvon's side of the story for obvious reasons. But again, as per Florida law, I guess that case is over, and little can be settled by discussing its particulars.

By the way, had Trayvon been armed, and had he felt threatened, do you think he would have gotten off scott free for shooting Zimmerman?It isn't impossible, but black males are imprisoned over 250% more often than whites for shooting others under deadly force laws. So I, for one, wouldn't' have bet on an acquittal.

We as a people need to ask how laws that permit the use of force apply when the danger is caused by the person with a gun. We need to ask ourselves where our paranoia comes from. We need to confront out prejudices. We need to make sure that our own fears don't translate directly into the deaths of others. We need to make sure that not all of our headlines come from instances of selfishness and stupidity. And we need to learn how to decide when something is broken so that we can fix it.

None of the above will happen because too many of us have remembered how to shrug our shoulders and turn away.

I don't want either of my boys getting shot because someone else decided they looked suspicious when innocent. I don't want either of my boys getting shot and then have their killer get off scott free because he felt "threatened".

Of course, my boys are smart enough to live outside the US. My boys both live in countries with much stricter gun laws, which shows that they are both smarter than me. That's not actually why they are there, but that fact is a nice byproduct.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.

Quote

Saying that since the jury found Zimmerman innocent

Zimmerman was not "found innocent". No jury in the entire history of the United States, in any criminal trial, ever, has ever "found someone innocent". He was found "not guilty", which is an entirely different matter.

Quote

We as a people need to ask how laws that permit the use of force apply when the danger is caused by the person with a gun.

That's easy: they don't. You cannot claim self-defense in situations where you are the aggressor. The law has never said otherwise.

I think you might want to spend some time learning about the laws regarding use of force in self-defense because it sounds to me like there are some gaps in your knowledge.

Why is his death okay because Zimmerman shot in self defense? Zimmerman should have been at home looking at porn and eating cheetos. And Trayvon should have been eating Skittles shortly when instead he was being carted off to the morgue.

Z ran out of cheetos and beer, he was on his way to Target to get more when he saw a teen in a hoodie "acting weird." These assholes always get away!

Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.

No. That is not what the law says. But that is how the law has been applied.

Under Stand your ground, a killer has these rights.

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.... One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

So, what constitutes a "reasonable belief of an unlawful threat?" In the Zimmerman case, seeing a young black kid walking in the rain caused the defendant to have a "reasonable belief" that there was an unlawful threat.

But the prosecution did not even need to invoke "stand your ground." They managed to convince the journey that the person who had been stalked, became the aggressor. He had access to a "deadly weapon." The sidewalk. And in spite of the fact that the EMS determined that Zimmerman's injuries did not need any treatment beyond cleaning, the prosecution managed to convince the jury that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.

No. That is not what the law says. But that is how the law has been applied.

Assuming just for the sake of argument that that is correct, all it would mean is that the law has been applied improperly, nothing more. What PP was trying to claim was that the Zimmerman verdict has greatly broadened the circumstances under which it is now lawful to take another human being's life in Florida, which is painfully untrue. By way of comparison, the O.J. Simpson verdict was a gargantuan travesty of justice, but it would be beyond absurd to claim that that verdict meant that premeditated homicide has been legalized in the state of California. It doesn't mean that. It only means that the system doesn't always work as it's supposed to, which is hardly a newsflash.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

So, what constitutes a "reasonable belief of an unlawful threat?" In the Zimmerman case, seeing a young black kid walking in the rain caused the defendant to have a "reasonable belief" that there was an unlawful threat.

The way its been reported, Zimmerman initially saw Martin as suspicious, not as an unlawful threat. The unlawful threat would only have applied once their was a physical altercation. So I think you're being a touch unfair in that assessment.

But the prosecution did not even need to invoke "stand your ground." They managed to convince the journey that the person who had been stalked, became the aggressor. He had access to a "deadly weapon." The sidewalk. And in spite of the fact that the EMS determined that Zimmerman's injuries did not need any treatment beyond cleaning, the prosecution managed to convince the jury that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

I read your 1,2,3,4, and the fact that SYG eliminates #4. That was my understanding, that before this law, you were supposed to try to avoid confrontation before using deadly force. You are not to follow or approach the person you think is a bad guy. You are supposed to get away if at all possible. Physical force was supposed to be the last resort, after all other avenues have been shut off. That is what I was taught in martial arts and self-defense training. But it seems that in this case, Z. was allowed to follow, approach, engage, ie SYG eliminating #4 but for some reason, Trayvon was supposed to avoid confrontation and run away as in the pre SYG 1,2,3,4.

As has already been discussed, we'll probably never know for sure exactly what happened, but even assuming that Zimmerman did "follow, approach, and engage", that is not the kind of behavior that an SYG law is meant to protect. An SYG law is only meant to acknowledge that, if you are attacked, you should not have an obligation to try to run away before using force to defend yourself. Briefly, an SYG law is meant to extend the Castle Doctrine from one's own home to any location where one has a legal right to be.

Quote

I was also taught that you should NEVER have a loaded gun in your hand, in a self-defense situation, unless you are prepared to kill. And you should not be carrying loaded if you are not prepared to use. Loaded guns are not supposed to be used to "scare" or "threaten" a possible bad guy-- once you engage, you have to be ready to kill or he will take that weapon and kill you.

Yes, this is correct. Carrying a gun and not being prepared to use it is far, far worse than not carrying a gun at all, for more reasons than one can shake the proverbial stick at.

Quote

For similar reasons, there is no point in carrying an unloaded weapon

Carrying a gun that isn't loaded would also be breathtakingly stupid. I've actually never head of any cases where anyone has ever done this for any reason, although I'm sure it does happen from time to time.

Quote

(unless you plan to rob a bank or liquor store and want a reduced charge in case you get caught).

That probably wouldn't work; armed robbery is armed robbery. The prosecution would argue that anyone being robbed at gunpoint would reasonably presuppose that the gun was loaded. I don't doubt that that's been tried, and I'm not familiar with the case law, but I don't think you'd be able to get away with trying to saw you weren't "really armed" in such a circumstance.

Quote

Women are always taught to scream and try to get away from a potential bad situation. Problem is, a lot of the time, everyday life is a potential bad situation for females. Whenever a woman is alone, esp after dark, she is in a potential bad situation. And most of the time, women are attacked by people they know, at least slightly. By the time she knows for sure that she is in danger, it is probably too late to scream or run anyway.

Which doesn't have anything to do with SYG laws.

Quote

Thus my earlier statement that women and girls should carry loaded weapons, and maybe even drive around looking for "suspicious males". As soon as things get dicey, shoot to kill. Your word against the dead guy's. And hope you get Zimmerman's jury.

Good luck with that. By the way, here's a fun thing for you to consider: if you ever do end up having to kill someone and you end up being charged with a crime for it, the prosecution is probably going to take this statement that you've made and use it against you in court to argue that you weren't really interested in protecting yourself from harm, but rather that you had a desire to commit a murder and intended to do so using an SYG law to try to get away with it. Have a nice day.

Quote

More guys who were guilty of only walking along the street will end up like Trayvon, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to stay off the streets. A lot more innocent dead guys along with the few rapists, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to run and hide. Let men, all men, not just young black men, be scared to walk the streets at night for a change.

Oh, we are, inasmuch as men are twice as likely as women to be victims of violent crime.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

piano, I'm being very generic. Person A followed and hassled person B for no good reason. Person B reacted violently, for whatever reason (and was possibly justified because he felt threatened). Person A killed person B. And while I am guilty of hyperbole, I am also guilty of being bothered that such things are possible to define as acceptable.

The specifics and the law don't even interest me. I don't like that Zimmerman wasn't willing to take responsibility for erroneously killing another human, law or no law. I don't like that the racism in this country distorts both sides of the story. I don't like that I can't trust any of the sources for this story.

But mostly I don't like that someone died who didn't have to because of unnecessary and unacceptable intervention on the part of another person. Nor do I like that anyone can find a way to justify it. But apparently that's just me.

I've often wondered what it would be like to be a member of a racial minority group. I take it that when I'm dead I'll know.

Your life, your norms, your plight, and your point of view is valued less for starters. Additionally, those trusted by and entrust with authority by the majority distrust and are ditrusted by minorities. Culture sows seeds of distrust that manafests in people's perceptions and actions even if the discriminating people aren't hateful or racist, but because there has been an overriding and consistant influence on society's subconscious that tells us that minorities (especially black men) are dangerous and threatening.The only recourse that has shown to be mildly successful in overcoming the systemic and real discrimination that exists involves the person that is the object of the discrimination to conform to, accept the authority of, and mimic the values, norms, and habits of the majority that breeds the discimination in the first place.

But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER. Much was made about this! Trayvon wasn't innocent! Cracker? Cracker? He was the racist.

But really. No one was listening to Rachel. She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by acreepy-ass cracker. She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker. Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex.

Everyone heard the word cracker. AH HA!!! See Trayvon must be the racist! And no one heard what she said next. She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted.

So it is better to be a homophobe than a racist?

Also, in the video you posted it is difficult to determine the context/phrasing of the term "creepy ass cracker" because every time the witness says all three words together the audio is muted out on the "cracker" part.

I wouldn't say that Trayvon might be racist. I mean if you're being stalked by someone, it is unnerving that you just say something out of fear. But i can be wrong. I'm not sure if the words she used was meant to say anything about rape or not. I mean, i think it could be "Creepy ass" like very creepy as hell.

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

I wouldn't say that Trayvon might be racist. I mean if you're being stalked by someone, it is unnerving that you just say something out of fear. But i can be wrong. I'm not sure if the words she used was meant to say anything about rape or not. I mean, i think it could be "Creepy ass" like very creepy as hell.

I don't know if you watched the original video that I posted to the end, but she says it again here on Piers Morgan.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Rachel Jeantel just opened up a whole new can of worms in my head. In an interview she said George should have just taken his ass whuppin'. She thinks Trayvon would have just kicked his ass and run away. Is this really just Popular Kid vs. Fat Kid? Fat kid, bullied all his life freaks out & shoots Popular kid? Makes me go hmmm...

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

The simple fact of the matter is that even disregarding the issue of race, Zimmerman was responsible. He did not need to pursue Martin, let alone confront him. Indeed, neighborhood watch members are strongly discouraged from pursuing suspected criminals because they're not trained for it. And because he didn't, a person is dead who did not need to die. Yes, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty, but if I understand the events of the trial correctly, the defense team did not even attempt to claim that he did not kill Martin. They tried instead to show that he was justified in doing so - even though he shouldn't have gotten involved beyond calling 911 and alerting the police.

Now if Zimmerman would come out and make a statement that went something like the following, I would be sort of satisfied, except for the dead guy part:

Quote

"I feel that I shot Trayvon Martin in self defense. However, the tragic series of events that led up to his death were all my fault. I made a series of decisions, and a series mistakes, based on my paranoia and my unfounded suspicions. I partook in aggressive behavior. Since I was armed, I felt a mistaken sense of security. I confronted Tryvon against the advise of the 911 dispatcher. He reacted in a way I did not to anticipate and that I was in no way trained to handle.

I failed to take into consideration the fact that different people react in different ways when confronted, and I also failed to take into consideration that he may have felt threatened by me because he perceived me as an attacker rather than a concerned citizen who was merely suspicious of him. So my aggressiveness, my lack of a professional law enforcement training, my feeling of power because I was armed and my disregard for Trayvon's rights combined to create a situatioin where I felt a need to pull the trigger and he ended up dead.

Though some say that I was within my rights to shoot him because he was hurting me, the threat he responded to was one of my making, and it is not up to any of us to decide in hindsight whether or not he was justified. We have no idea what was going through his head, and it is very easy to see ways in which he would have thought that I was a direct danger. And apparently I was, because he is dead now.

I accept full responsibility for his death. It should not have happened, and the only reason it did was because I did everything wrong."

It won't happen, of course. He's too busy making book deals and signing autographs for Rush Limbaugh and Wayne LaPierre to take the time. But a guy can wish.

I did some reviewing of the facts of the case (such as a Google Earth map of the area with the approximate locations marked). From what I can tell, here's what happened.

Martin was walking home from a convenience store with his purchases in his hands. Zimmerman was driving through the area on a personal errand and saw Martin. He proceeded to call 911. The transcript of the call is available on the [wiki]shooting of Trayvon Martin[/wiki] wiki page, but the gist of it is that Martin saw Zimmerman, approached his car, and then ran off (away from the street). Zimmerman got out of his car when he saw Martin running and followed him, probably to see where he was going, thus the question from the dispatcher about whether he was following Martin.

I don't think Zimmerman was actually chasing Martin - just trying to observe where he went. However, considering that he went past the first row of townhouses, then down past the first one, it was more than a bit too far to simply observe him. And given the situation, it's likely that Martin (who was probably having an adrenaline rush) returned to where Zimmerman was and confronted him. That's when the fight happened. So, Zimmerman may not have actually instigated the altercation, but he did have something to do with provoking it by getting out of his car and following Martin.

Was it self-defense? I don't think it was. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car to go after Martin to begin with, and he also shouldn't have stayed in the middle of those two rows of townhouses (especially considering his apparent worry about not knowing where Martin was). That violated two of the basic principles of self-defense, avoidance and withdrawal. By getting out of his car and following Martin partway, he upped the stakes for both of them.

Certainly, once Martin had him down and was hitting him, he was pretty limited in what he could do. But he should not have let himself get in that position to begin with. He should not have gone after Martin in the first place, and he should have pulled back as soon as he lost sight of Martin. He should certainly not have stood there with his thumb up his butt chatting with a 911 dispatcher for more than a minute after losing sight of Martin. And that's why I feel the claim of self-defense was not justified.

Addendum: I read an interesting blog article that referred to an interesting martial artist making a remarkably stupid decision to walk through Central Park late at night, because he had a black belt in karate. The parallel to the Zimmerman thing is interesting - he was confronted before he even got 100 yards in and was injected with a hypo by one of his three attackers. But he made up for it by retreating, as fast as possible, and got out essentially unharmed. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Zimmerman had been sensible enough to run once Martin confronted him. As it stands, he was rather foolish, apparently thinking that his status as the head of the neighborhood watch and the fact that he was armed would be enough.

If Martin had been seriously trying to kill him, he would have been dead, gun or no gun.